In In re Marriage of Cheriton (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 269, the Court held the trial court erred in failing to impute income to the husband for child support purposes, on proceeds of $ 9.75 million realized from his sale of stock options. ( Id. at pp. 280, 289.) The appellate court also held the court erred in refusing to even consider imputing reasonable income on the husband's assets in vested stock options worth tens of millions of dollars, pursuant to section 4058, subdivision (b), to the extent necessary to meet the children's reasonable needs. ( Id. at pp. 289-290, 292.) The appellate court realized these assets were income producing ( id. at p. 291) and also recognized that "trial courts are invested with substantial discretion in this area, and that no California authority expressly mandates the consideration of a parent's assets in awarding child support. Nevertheless, under the circumstances present here, we conclude that the trial court's refusal to consider husband's substantial wealth in setting child support may have resulted in an order that is too low to be in the best interests of his children, based on an assessment of their reasonable needs." ( Id. at p. 292.)